Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful context by specifying that the output includes broader, narrower, and related concepts with canonical identifiers, but it does not describe return format, pagination, error behavior, or any constraints beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose and output content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple one-parameter read operation, full annotation coverage, and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys the return content (relationship types and identifiers). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning any limitations, such as behavior when the concept has no relationships, but the core information an agent needs is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is documented as "Canonical concept slug" in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema itself is fully documented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ("Retrieve") and a precise resource ("broader, narrower and related concepts with their canonical identifiers"), so an agent can tell this is about fetching relationships rather than concept details. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_concept or get_context, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states what the tool returns but offers no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_concept or search_concepts. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts that should trigger this tool over its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.